Spec URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/mpich.spec SRPM URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/mpich-3.0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This is a re-review request for renaming mpich2 to mpich. The package renaming was originally done upstream. The functionalities of the package largely remains the same, only some features/subsystems (eg. mpe logging facility) are no longer shipped with the main package tarball. Also, support for the old process manager mpd has been dropped; along with alternatives packaging support. Fedora Account System Username: deji
Suggestion: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig Issue: changelog contains 3.0.2, but no 3.0.4 presented. Please fix.
Wow.. Many unused-direct-shlib-dependency problems... See the attachment.
Created attachment 775092 [details] review results
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #2) > Wow.. > > Many unused-direct-shlib-dependency problems... > > See the attachment. Thanks for taking time to review the package. I have fixed the 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' and many of the other reported rpmlint warnings. I believe most of the other watnings/errors can be safely ignored, especially these; >>> mpich.i686: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/mpich/man1/mpicc.1.gz mpich.i686: W: file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/mpich/man1/mpicc.1.gz >>> The packaging behaviour in these cases are in accordance with the Fedora MPI packaging guidelines (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MPI#Packaging_of_MPI_compilers). Updated spec and srpm files are available at; Spec URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/mpich.spec SRPM URL: http://deji.fedorapeople.org/mpich-3.0.4-2.fc18.src.rpm
Yes I know these handy problems. SO approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mpich Short Description: A high-performance implementation of MPI Owners: deji Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
The package has been imported into git repo and will be built shortly. Thank you all for your efforts.
Why no: %check make check section? IMO should have been suggested in review. I've checked this in and submitted a build.